Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List • Hacker News Board

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#151

Post by csydas » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #103

pmontra wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A la carte means that I pay $1 for that episode of that series. If I don't want to see anything else that month I don't pay anything else. What Netflix sells is a subscription. Same as for phones back into the times voice only no data services: pay as you go vs subscription. I want watch as I go.

A la carte as it was brought up originally with TV was about unbundling all the channels and letting viewers pay per channel they wanted. What you're describing is essentially PPV/VOD, and that exists now in iTunes, Amazon and Vudu.

I guess but both the a la carte and PPV/VOD options do not operate as expected. The biggest issue is geolocation versus point of purchase, and it's very frustrating and often contradictory.

I live abroad and cannot use virtually any of my Amazon Prime since virtually every non-amazon original is blocked in the country I live in. When I was in the US, I could legally copy the file to my Kindle and view it anywhere (with the ticking timebomb that is the download expiry). While I understand the "technical" difference between this and streaming it while I'm abroad, I feel that it's splitting hairs - ultimate I'm using the same service to watch the same content, just instead of a browser cache it's temporarily loaded on my Kindle.

I understand we got here because of distribution rights,but what I don't understand is how it's still so consumer anti-friendly. I have no means of knowing whether or not I can view a video except to open it and check. With other streaming services, I have no idea whether or not their library is available in my country prior to purchase. It surprises me that this is not a function offered to let you browse the library and get an accurate idea of what you can and cannot watch. It may be a fringe case, but I would imagine for many countries, the idea of constantly moving back and forth between countries with different distirbution deals would be common enough that the support cases alone would justify such a feature.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#152

Post by Cthulhu_ » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

Y-bar wrote: post #15

And of these 31 remaining almost half are missing in the Swedish Netflix: 5. Back to the Future 6. Gladiator 7. Sunset Boulevard 8. Cinema Paradiso 9. Django Unchained 12. Reservoir Dogs 13. Braveheart 17. Amadeus 21. Trainspotting 24. There Will Be Blood 25. Spotlight 26. The Princess Bride 27. Zootopia 29. Jaws 31. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl And yet Netflix want the same monthly cost for…

Different licensing structure and cost in Sweden, and probably also different offerings based on the country and viewers. I'm sure the Swedish would like to see more Swedish content, which the US doesn't have any interest in.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#153

Post by mikeash » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

karyon wrote: post #133

ekianjo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The analogy between shoplifting and copyright infrigement gets really, really old.

I've made that argument myself, but agree that the current video streaming situation is just dumb. Could you explain me why that analogy is wrong? I understand there is no damage done as in, they don't have less money than they had before, but they still have less money than they would have if i bought/rented the video.

That is why the analogy is wrong. If you're in a situation where you're definitely not going to buy it (because nobody will take your money and give you the product, for example) then there's no difference to them if you watch it or not.

Imagine I really want your car, so I take it. Or imagine I really want your car, so I use a magic wand to make an exact duplicate of it. Are those two scenarios at all comparable?

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#154

Post by eatbitseveryday » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

dorfsmay wrote: post #100

eatbitseveryday wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off topic, but... > They are the one responsible for the great Proxy/VPN banning this year. At first, I thought this meant Netflix banning all use of VPN for streaming. Searching news articles shows in fact a Rogers VP rep had called on the government to outright ban VPN universally[1], but this was back in spring 2015. You are saying this has actually been made law and is enforced? How did this pass when major corpo…

It was enforced technically. Netflix has upped the game to the point nobody is able to provide a service to watch non-canadian Netflix in Canada, which renders Netflix useless.

You may have to find a manual solution. Have you tried spawning a VPS in the US and connecting to it via Shadowsocks?[1] I apparently can sign up for an account when routed through such a setup and Netflix doesn't seem to think it's a VPN (this was a VPS hosted in Germany, however). I can give more details if interested.

[1] https://shadowsocks.org/

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#155

Post by ekianjo » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

karyon wrote: post #133

ekianjo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The analogy between shoplifting and copyright infrigement gets really, really old.

I've made that argument myself, but agree that the current video streaming situation is just dumb. Could you explain me why that analogy is wrong? I understand there is no damage done as in, they don't have less money than they had before, but they still have less money than they would have if i bought/rented the video.

They dont have less money than before because its either you cant watch it in this case or you watch it illegally. Nobody loses money, its lost opportunity at best.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#156

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

andybak wrote: post #136

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know; I have to keep bringing it up because people keep pretending they're owed entertainment. This entitled generation is just disappointing.

The reason the comparison is objectionable is because 'theft' is not the same as 'failing to pay a fee'. Theft implies a non-duplicatable object has passed from the possession of one entity to the possession of another thus depriving the first entity of any use or advantage from it. While we might disagree on the moral shading of copyright infringement can we agree that piracy and theft are different things?

...and there's the convenient, highly abstract argument. When wanting free stuff, no mental gymnastic is too hard.

I'm a pragmatist. I see folks wanting to avoid disappointment (can't see favorite show) suddenly becoming theoretical philosophers. Like a 12-year-old deciding their older brother's belongings really belong to everybody, because socialism or whatever.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#157

Post by oelmekki » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

In the end, the licence owners will lose. Spotify makes it useless to download music illegally because it's so much easier and pleasant to use spotify.

If they don't want to play fair game with Netflix, people will just keep / start again downloading the movies they want to watch, because it will be easier.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#158

Post by throwawayReply » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

2T1Qka0rEiPr wrote: post #89

As a UK resident, with access to Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Sky, I actually applaud Neflix's conscious move away from blockbuster content. Netflix has created some of my favourite shows in the past few years (e.g. House of Cards and Narcos) and I'd rather have that original content given my access to the other services - Sky is better probably better able (through it's Fox parent company) to deliver the blockbus…

I agree, but it's conditioned on the fact that in the UK netflix never had good movies, it was all about it's TV box sets rather than movies from the start here.

Netflix UK doesn't push movies, I'd be surprised if it had more than 5 movies from the top 250, although the catalogue is so hard to browse it's hard to verify.

If netflix was previously advertised here based on it's movie offering I would be annoyed about it's pivot to focus on TV.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#159

Post by dhimes » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #110

roboguy12 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last weekend my wife and I wanted to watch the movie Goat. It was pretty recently in theaters, so we didn't expect it to be on Netflix. We searched HBO Now, Hulu, Starz, and all of the other video streaming services that we have (and pay money for!). We found two options - rent it on Google Play Movies, or rent it through Amazon Prime. Now, we wanted to Chromecast it, and Amazon (to the best of my knowledge) does not…

Yeah I'm not sympathetic. The alternative to finding (and failing to find) a service to watch the show could possibly be - not watching it? The conclusion 'naturally we then had to steal it' isn't entirely justified. Shoplifting is easy and convenient too. Next time you forget your wallet at the corner store. Just sayin.

Actually, I'm ok with "pirating" it if they tried to legally get it first. Also, I personally probably wouldn't ask for a refund if I was going to watch it anyway- figuring that what I was doing was morally right I was just hacking the implementation- and the content creators would get their fair share.

I, like you, am disturbed by the "if it's easy to steal then it's ok to steal" argument. It really hurts people who make a living as creatives.

Re: Netflix Now Only Has 31 Movies from IMDB's Top 250 List

#160

Post by lostcolony » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 2:23 PM UTC

hamax wrote: post #135

roboguy12 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last weekend my wife and I wanted to watch the movie Goat. It was pretty recently in theaters, so we didn't expect it to be on Netflix. We searched HBO Now, Hulu, Starz, and all of the other video streaming services that we have (and pay money for!). We found two options - rent it on Google Play Movies, or rent it through Amazon Prime. Now, we wanted to Chromecast it, and Amazon (to the best of my knowledge) does not…

> We really, really tried to do it the legal way and pay money for the content we wanted to watch, but it was far too complicated to even find a place to watch it, let alone actually successfully watch it. Why didn't you just stream Amazon or Play Movies from the computer since you plugged it in anyways? How was stealing it more convenient?

Because after having such a terrible experience they went with one that, should things go wrong, doesn't entail spending 35 minutes on the phone with support for them to get a refund?